Shooting and Explosions in Paris

Status
Not open for further replies.
cowboy said:
Don't you think part of the solution to the Northern Ireland troubles was when USA got a taste of terrorism themselves and stopped funding the IRA?
Click to expand...

If you're referring to 9/11 then no. The Good Friday agreement which brought about power sharing in NI was established in 1998 and is accredited with bringing about an end to the conflict.
 
Last edited:
NeilA1975 said:
That fine if you're engaging with parties that have clear, well defined and reasonable agendas and are prepared to sit around a negotiation table.
In IS and other extremists you're dealing with a completely different animal, one where there is never a possibility of a 'negotiation' purely on the basis its their way or no way, as their twisted ideology dictates.
Click to expand...

Do you know that? What's their aim? To develop and control a strict islamic state, at present the method they are using is to use force. It's not like other countries weren't formed that way.
Say for instance the UN sat down and together granted them an area of land, similar to that for Israel. Would it be easier to interact, influence, control or to continue in the current way?

With the current vacuum of power across parts of the middle east, some have seized the opportunity we have granted them.
 
cowboy said:
Don't you think part of the solution to the Northern Ireland troubles was when USA got a taste of terrorism themselves and stopped funding the IRA?
Click to expand...


Yeah definitely, the American support of the IRA was huge
 
cambsno said:
What gets me is why is it an EU problem, if there are millions if genuine refugees where are the US, Canada, Australia, China... all great land masses?
Click to expand...

Probably the logistics of getting there.
 
norters said:
That's some crazy crystal ball you've got.
Click to expand...

Well, if I was one of them that would be my plan... makes sense, why just kill a few people when you can launch total chaos and destruction. Of course, you could just close your eyes and hope they go away...
 
Just wondering but is there a chance that this attack on the West could be linked to the fact that the Russian involvement is starting to defeat ISIS and they want to draw the West in more to possibly get in the way of the Russuans?
 
OldCarlos said:
Didn't we just fly a plane load in from Syria a day or two ago?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. I don't know.

But in the grander scheme of things, one plane is not much. Ten planes is still not much. Maybe a hundred it getting close to what would start to make a dent but still, in reality, is not much.

So yes the logistics may exits, but the don't scale to what is needed to make best use of the countries that could help, but are not fastened to syria by land mass.
 
RichardtheSane said:
But in the grander scheme of things, one plane is not much. Ten planes is still not much. Maybe a hundred it getting close to what would start to make a dent but still, in reality, is not much.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. If the world is going to help, other/larger counties would need to be doing much more. The numbers are overwhelming especially for the likes of Greece.
The only real answer long term, is for folk to live peacefully in their own country, so the problems need sorting at source.

OldCarlos said:
Didn't we just fly a plane load in from Syria a day or two ago?
Click to expand...

Apparently the first plane will come in to Glasgow on Tues & Scotland will home around a third of the 1000 who are due to arrive in Britain before Christmas.

Isle of Bute? Crikey they won't know what's hit em! :eek: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/15/isle-of-bute-syrian-refugees-its-a-wonderful-life
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Ah, so it's all our fault and nothing to do with Assad being a murdering b*****d and the people of Syria wanting rid of him?
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no doubt that Assad has been brutal, but where do you get the idea that the people of Syria - meaning all the people, want to get rid of him?
It is largely our fault, because as with Egypt, once the Arab Spring started, there were demonstrations in Syria, and the US, UK and France saw an opportunity to rid themselves of Assad. So, that was when we started funding, training and arming so called "Syrian rebels" - mostly radical Islamists from previously proscribed terrorist organisations including ISIL and Al Qaeda, in order to overthrow the Syrian regime.
The rise of ISIL started after the invasion of Iraq, when Sunni Muslims found that they no longer had the backing of their dictator - Saddam Hussein, so organised themselves into yet another terrorist organisation.
So yes, much of this would not have happened, if we had not invaded Iraq, and not tried to plunge Syria into chaos.
 
andy700 said:
There is absolutely no doubt that Assad has been brutal, but where do you get the idea that the people of Syria - meaning all the people, want to get rid of him?
It is largely our fault, because as with Egypt, once the Arab Spring started, there were demonstrations in Syria, and the US, UK and France saw an opportunity to rid themselves of Assad. So, that was when we started funding, training and arming so called "Syrian rebels" - mostly radical Islamists from previously proscribed terrorist organisations including ISIL and Al Qaeda, in order to overthrow the Syrian regime.
The rise of ISIL started after the invasion of Iraq, when Sunni Muslims found that they no longer had the backing of their dictator - Saddam Hussein, so organised themselves into yet another terrorist organisation.
So yes, much of this would not have happened, if we had not invaded Iraq, and not tried to plunge Syria into chaos.
Click to expand...

I do have to agree that I feel the West (and by that I broadly mean the USA and UK) have caused a lot of this grief ourselves, no-one doubted the case for intervention in Afghanistan but by taking out Saddam and fragmenting Iraq we started the Arab Spring and to be fair it hasn't gone so well so far... maybe we need to accept that theres a reason some of the countries like Libya, Iraq and Syria have had dictatorships, its because its all thats kept most of these countries from descending into civil war over the last 30 years... one hard-man keeping them in check.

Sadly I just don't see how we're ever going to be able to stop this threat that was largely started by US funding and support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's and made worse by persistent Western meddling in the Middle East.
 
OldCarlos said:
T
Apparently the first plane will come in to Glasgow on Tues & Scotland will home around a third of the 1000 who are due to arrive in Britain before Christmas.
Isle of Bute? Crikey they won't know what's hit em! :eek: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/15/isle-of-bute-syrian-refugees-its-a-wonderful-life
Click to expand...

Canavan is already planning another community event. “I can’t wait to taste Syrian food. Once they’re all settled in, I want to ask them to have a Syrian food night in the church hall. It would be great if they could introduce us to a few new tastes and aromas.”

Brilliant - how cool is that and how better to get to truly know someone than over the food they eat.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I do have to agree that I feel the West (and by that I broadly mean the USA and UK) have caused a lot of this grief ourselves, no-one doubted the case for intervention in Afghanistan but by taking out Saddam and fragmenting Iraq we started the Arab Spring and to be fair it hasn't gone so well so far... maybe we need to accept that theres a reason some of the countries like Libya, Iraq and Syria have had dictatorships, its because its all thats kept most of these countries from descending into civil war over the last 30 years... one hard-man keeping them in check.

Sadly I just don't see how we're ever going to be able to stop this threat that was largely started by US funding and support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's and made worse by persistent Western meddling in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

It's difficult for us hand wringing liberal westerners.

We see evil regimes carrying out every conceivable barbaric act and we feel the need to do something. Lets remember what was happening in Iraq after the 1st gulf war and before the second.... ethnic cleansing, state murder, torture and rape on an industrial scale and lets not forget that they had torture and rape camps and mass graves in the desert containing the bodies of thousands of tortured, raped and murdered people... and thousands more were killed with the use of chemical weapons and that's been a red line which the west now doesn't seem to want to enforce.

So we felt the need to do something but we're subject to changing public opinion and both the politicians and the public didn't have the stomach to see the nation building through to anything like a conclusion once the body bags started to come home, so we cut and run.

We have a problem in the west. We wring our hands when we see the evil that is perpetrated and we feel the need to stop it but we haven't got the stomach to stay with the job for 20, 30, 40 or more years. The options are to accept that if we intervene we're going to see money flow out of the country and body bags flow in for decades or we harden ourselves to the images on the news and accept that we haven't got the stomach to do anything effective about it.
 
Last edited:
chrism_scotland said:
... maybe we need to accept that theres a reason some of the countries like Libya, Iraq and Syria have had dictatorships, its because its all thats kept most of these countries from descending into civil war over the last 30 years... one hard-man keeping them in check.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

It doesn't make for an easy life for many, nor does it make it right, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was more suffering/deaths/threats these days, since the fall of the dictators/military rule.
 
gman said:
Just wondering but is there a chance that this attack on the West could be linked to the fact that the Russian involvement is starting to defeat ISIS.......
Click to expand...

Really?
When did that start to happen?
 
Mr Trump raised a very interesting point yesterday. He is clearly a strong believer in gun ownership and unsurprisingly thinks that if the people had guns the attackers would have been defeated with significantly smaller number of casualties. I was never pro-gun myself but I certainly see the point now. If the threat escalates any further I believe this will become a necessity. The other alternative would be to have Israeli style army and guards patrolling all streets, shops and transport. I imagine our budget won't stretch to it.
 
Found out today that the in laws are safe

Unfortunately though the partner of one of the people that works for the father in law was killed
 
daugirdas said:
Mr Trump raised a very interesting point yesterday. He is clearly a strong believer in gun ownership and unsurprisingly thinks that if the people had guns the attackers would have been defeated with significantly smaller number of casualties. I was never pro-gun myself but I certainly see the point now. If the threat escalates any further I believe this will become a necessity. The other alternative would be to have Israeli style army and guards patrolling all streets, shops and transport. I imagine our budget won't stretch to it.
Click to expand...

I have to say considering the amount of gun related crime in the USA I don't see that everyone being armed is the answer, I think we forget that just because most folk have a gun it doesn't mean they carry it, the vast majority in the city will be in safes or drawers in the house for protection, not in their handbag or briefcase so it still wouldn't stop the type of attack we saw in Paris on Friday or Mumbai in 2008.

The French already had soldiers on the streets following the Charlie Hebdo attack and many of the police on the street are armed and that didn't stop this happening, buildings deemed as high value targets are relatively well protected (Eiffel Tower for example in Paris or The City in London), if people are going to attack areas that haven't been deemed as a high probability of being victim of attack then regardless of how many police, soldiers, gendarmes are on the streets they can't be everywhere.
 
andy700 said:
It was trying to overthrow Assad, because of his links with Russia and Iran which caused this mess in the first place.
Click to expand...

sure , but the reason the syrian people wanted to overthrow assad was because hes a fascist dictator - so if we align ourselves with him to oppose IS we allow them to paint themselves as the protector of the people against an imperialist west proping up a corrupt and facist regime ... rather like the american support for the south vietnamese regime in the vietnam war , and we all know how well that ended.

the way to beat terrorists is to seperate them from their popular support - not alienate the population and force them into the arms of the terror groups
 
chrism_scotland said:
I have to say considering the amount of gun related crime in the USA I don't see that everyone being armed is the answer, I think we forget that just because most folk have a gun it doesn't mean they carry it, the vast majority in the city will be in safes or drawers in the house for protection, not in their handbag or briefcase so it still wouldn't stop the type of attack we saw in Paris on Friday or Mumbai in 2008.

The French already had soldiers on the streets following the Charlie Hebdo attack and many of the police on the street are armed and that didn't stop this happening, buildings deemed as high value targets are relatively well protected (Eiffel Tower for example in Paris or The City in London), if people are going to attack areas that haven't been deemed as a high probability of being victim of attack then regardless of how many police, soldiers, gendarmes are on the streets they can't be everywhere.
Click to expand...

but the point is somebody would have taken out the attacker from behind and death toll could have been say 15 instead of 100. This is still bad bad not as bad.

I take your point about the US. Something is really not right there... perhaps the large deprived communities with no proper education and life prospects. On the other hand gun ownership is high in Switzerland and Austria and they don't really have such problems. As I said I was never a gun supporter but the times are changing and this needs a proper debate.
 
daugirdas said:
Mr Trump raised a very interesting point yesterday. He is clearly a strong believer in gun ownership and unsurprisingly thinks that if the people had guns the attackers would have been defeated with significantly smaller number of casualties. I was never pro-gun myself but I certainly see the point now. If the threat escalates any further I believe this will become a necessity. The other alternative would be to have Israeli style army and guards patrolling all streets, shops and transport. I imagine our budget won't stretch to it.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. More guns, thats what France needs. No need to look further for answers once you have listened to Trump, the future saviour of the USA.
 
daugirdas said:
but the point is somebody would have taken out the attacker from behind and death toll could have been say 15 instead of 100. This is still bad bad not as bad.

I take your point about the US. Something is really not right there... perhaps the large deprived communities with no proper education and life prospects. On the other hand gun ownership is high in Switzerland and Austria and they don't really have such problems. As I said I was never a gun supporter but the times are changing and this needs a proper debate.
Click to expand...
I take your point that it might of helped in a case like this, however when you look at stats carrying a gun actually increases your chances of being murdered by a gun. In the US 4 times more likely and again 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in France or the UK.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
but the point is somebody would have taken out the attacker from behind and death toll could have been say 15 instead of 100. This is still bad bad not as bad.

I take your point about the US. Something is really not right there... perhaps the large deprived communities with no proper education and life prospects. On the other hand gun ownership is high in Switzerland and Austria and they don't really have such problems. As I said I was never a gun supporter but the times are changing and this needs a proper debate.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the answer is, but guns it certainly isn't!
 
big soft moose said:
sure , but the reason the syrian people wanted to overthrow assad was because hes a fascist dictator
Click to expand...


He only became a fascist dictator, after the violent demonstrations of 2010, when the West was encouraging unrest in various parts of the Arab World - Libya, Egypt, Syria, and choosing to turn a blind eye to other parts of the Arab World where it wished to maintain the status quo - Saudi Arabia, Bahrain.
Isn't it strange how Saddam Hussein was not referred to as a fascist dictator when he was encouraged by the US to attack Iran in 1980

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaP7ZrmkcuU


http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Prior to the Arab Spring, Syria was a great and diverse place to visit, and was one of the very few secular states in the region.
I wonder what folks would imagine our government woud do, if we had demonstrations on the scale they have in the Middle East, specifically designed to violently sieze power?

I should have added that not everyone in Syria wants to get rid of Assad, maybe not even a majority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
daugirdas said:
Mr Trump raised a very interesting point yesterday. He is clearly a strong believer in gun ownership and unsurprisingly thinks that if the people had guns the attackers would have been defeated with significantly smaller number of casualties. I was never pro-gun myself but I certainly see the point now. If the threat escalates any further I believe this will become a necessity.
Click to expand...

This won't happen. The British government started disarming its own people, the same ones they sent to war, in 1920 because they no longer trusted them. The right to keep and bear arms will not be restored, but there's no need to be concerned. The state will look after you, with its enhanced snooping and surveillance powers, which surely can't be denied after something like this...
 
andy700 said:
He only became a fascist dictator, after the violent demonstrations of 2010, .
Click to expand...

nope - both assad and sadam hussein were facsist dictators long before that - both are/were members of the baath party which is basically a secular but facist organisation. The fact that the west sided with sad man insane in the 80s against Iran means nothing - we also supported pinochet, the contra's in nicuragua and various other 'bastions against communism/ islamic extremism' - hell we supported the shah prior to his overthrow in '79 , we supported the diem govt in south vietnam , batista in cuba and many more none of whom were democratic.

you are right that syria was relatively stable prior to the arab spring - but equally iraq was relatively stable prior to the first gulf war - the reason being that the leaders viciously cracked down on any insurgent who might oppose them - Germany was pretty stable in 1936 so stability itself means nothing.

Assad is probably preferable to Isis , but siding with him is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the syrian populace - fortunately that isnt going to happen as russia has taken that stance (and their position is driven by realpolitik and the strategic need to maintain their navalbase on syrian soil) and america is pretty much bound to take a stance opposing that of the russians
 
Cobra said:
You would hope that all these "Agencies" have a damned good handle on that, otherwise what are we paying them for?
I suspect ( would hope at least) that they know far more than they are letting on.


Aint that the truth ? :(
Click to expand...
This. I was travelling back to the UK Friday evening after an extended assignment abroad. Early evening the airport checks were 100%. Not seen anything like it in recent history. The sensitivity of the scanners was at their highest setting, picking up the slightest thing and every carry on suitcase for every flight was being opened. This was several hours before the attack.
 
mex said:
Something I just can't get my head around, why would a terrorist carry his passport at the time of carrying out such an attrocity? would it be the same reason that the CIA just happened to find the passport of one of the hijackers from 9/11 in the rubble of the WTC?
Click to expand...
It is totally normal to carry your papers around. I'm still in that habit and have my passport on me nearly all the time. I appreciate it is an alien concept to British people to carry identity papers.

And besides the normality of carrying one, it helps when you then drive to another country (no border checks in schengen) and take a plane out or whatever.

What would be much more interesting is when the person that passport belongs to isn't actually there ;)
 
dejongj said:
This. I was travelling back to the UK Friday evening after an extended assignment abroad. Early evening the airport checks were 100%. Not seen anything like it in recent history. The sensitivity of the scanners was at their highest setting, picking up the slightest thing and every carry on suitcase for every flight was being opened. This was several hours before the attack.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting JP.
Do you think the powers that be were aware of the possibility of some kind of imminent threat?
 
viv1969 said:
That's very interesting JP.
Do you think the powers that be were aware of the possibility of some kind of imminent threat?
Click to expand...
That and as a result of the lack of airport security in Egypt recently. My mate went to Tenerife a few days before the Russian plane disaster and although the airport security was good on the way out, on the way back, after the disaster, the security checks had been ramped right up.
 
viv1969 said:
That's very interesting JP.
Do you think the powers that be were aware of the possibility of some kind of imminent threat?
Click to expand...

I did hear one news report say that the French Security were aware of a threat, but as Niligan says I would guess the security at airports is more to
do the the Russian aircrash.

It's hard for any government to decide what action to take when they get threats, unless they know exactly when and where, which often they don't.
and I doubt the public would appreciate a total shut down on all large gatherings (sports events, concerts etc) just in case.

As I said in another thread, I lived my life doing what I wanted,I had a trip to London planned during the 1970s bombings, people said don't go you
might get hurt, I went, nothing happened.
If you give up doing what you want because of these things then the terrorists have to a degree won
 
Last edited:
Carlo said:
but then you have to ask, why are IS doing ths?
Click to expand...

Medieval ideology ............ they have failed to achieve anything like modern civilisation.
Medieval ideology + modern weapons is a deadly combination.
They appear to have a lot of supporters and sympathisers.
 
viv1969 said:
That's very interesting JP.
Do you think the powers that be were aware of the possibility of some kind of imminent threat?
Click to expand...
I think they were, unfortunately they ran out of time to pinpoint the exact details and location. For any such deeply tragic event that slips through the net, many more are thwarted that we never hear about in the general media/press.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top